Clare All At Sea

Thursday, 1 August 2013

This is something I have been pondering over recently as I
started reading up on ‘issues in nature’ and writing my series about ‘the
science behind the nature headlines’ (which alas has been rather stalled due to
massive overload on the work front, redecoration of our house and the ever
demanding (but ever gorgeous) toddlers.

So as I wrote my article, for example on the badger cull, I
read around all the issues, read many of the papers on the subject, wrote it up
and pronounced my sentence… ‘I pronounce the badger cull wrong on so many
counts’. It’s not even my field. I’m not even sure when I say ‘hey you policy
makers why haven’t we got Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for harbour porpoises
when we’re supposed to by law’… and that is my area (I even wrote a paper on it
here). So should I be an advocate for nature? Or should I just stick to what I
do know about my science & not state a position?

This blog post that I’m writing now has been dwelling in my
brain for a few months, I’d keep going back to the question and ponder it &
leave it to ponder again at a later date. Then today on twitter (I’m a bit
behind on my twitter feed) there were several posts about science &
advocacy – an excellent post by Carina Wyborn reflecting on the role of
advocacy in conservation science ‘Is advocacy still a four letter word?’ and a
very thought provoking post in the Guardian by Tamsin Edwards ‘Climate scientists must not advocate particular policies’. It got me thinking again…

Carina’s blog post had a really good quote that really
resonated with me:

‘Those who have the privilege to know, have the
responsibility to act’

I work on marine ecosystems – I can see the influence of
human activity on our marine ecosystems and worry about it. Should I therefore
start advocating change or certain policies based on my best knowledge as a
scientist? Tamsin would say no. Our role as scientists is to investigate and
report our findings as clearly and coherently as possible so that people can judge
for themselves. I can see much logic in this view, and it has been mostly the
approach I have used for the majority of my science career to date. I say was,
because of late I have found myself getting much more ‘shouty’ and taking a
stance on issues because I am and always have been passionate for nature &
feel as though I need to take a stand and try to make a difference. If
scientists who work in the fields don’t take action on what they can see
happening, who can? I say this but I’m still not convincing myself, it makes me
uneasy to take a stance. And it is very much for the reasons Tamsin states – I
am a scientist working in nature conservation, people might take what I say as gospel because it’s my
field (regardless of the fact my area is very small & my statements on
anything other than pelagic marine ecosystems are not much better informed than
a well-informed lay person…). So maybe I should go back to being neutral...

So, should I have just stated the facts with the badger cull
and not stated an opinion? I mean it’s not my field, and in the end it’s a
matter of weighing up the evidence & making a call. So with the badger
cull, maybe it would work and have a big impact on reducing bTB in cattle, and
we’d get in the position of actually getting on top of the disease? I mean we
push our fish stocks to near extinction and people don’t kick up a fuss, so
what’s the fuss about killing badgers to save killing even more cattle? (I’m playing devil’s advocate here, in
my ideal world we’d have a society & culture in balance with nature, I’m on
the side of nature at my core). Also, if scientists take a position (like the
very highly respected scientist Lord Krebs) on the badger cull saying they
disagree with it, are they wrong to be stating an opinion because they aren’t
letting the government weigh up the pros and cons & make a decision that
supports the majority?

And what about my area – marine conservation zones? Should
we as scientists not take a position on these & let the government go ahead
with only designating 32 out of the 127? After all who are we to tell the
government that they should be taking money away from, say, healthcare, to have
a well-managed network of marine conservation zones… because in the end that’s
what it’s down to – cost. Because let’s face it, it’s all very well saying that
we’ll have 1, 32, or even all 127 MCZs plus reference areas where no human
activity likely to have an impact is banned… but without proper protection and
policing we’d end up with ‘paper parks’ – protected on paper but not in
reality. And completely down my area of research – why advocate for marine
protected areas for such mobile species as harbour porpoises, when we know that
these species range over large areas, and are likely to change their
distribution as their prey distributions change… i.e. an MPA designated one
year could be defunct in a few years once the porpoises move away following
their prey*. See, even with information at our fingertips, conservation science
is not simple. I am never sure whether the approach I advocate at the time is
the right approach to be advocating.

I leave this to debate, I’m still not sure what approach is
best – I have become more of an advocate of late, but an unsure advocate,
because I also suffer from ‘imposter syndrome’ so never believe I’m right
anyway (always feel like there could be something I’m missing which means that
my opinion will always be wrong). I feel more comfortable being a neutral
scientist, it’s a safer position – ‘state facts, don’t give an opinion, then
nobody can criticise you’. Being an advocate is a nerve-racking place to be, so
I’d gladly retreat back into scientist mode.
But part of me feels a duty to act, that science without action just isn’t
enough…

Hmmm… thoughts?

*Just to say that this is giving conservation of mobile species a very broad brush, there are many other issues! Conservation of mobile marine species definitely warrants its own blog post...

Friday, 21 June 2013

This week I was a panellist on the Big Green Week’s ‘Question
Time: The state of nature, the next step’ (watch it here). It was a huge honour to be asked to
be on the panel, and really inspiring :) We discussed everything from the badger cull (emotive topic!), to farming to
feed the world, to urban nature and inspiring children and adults to reconnect
with nature.

I think the most moving testimony was that of a secondary
school geography teacher who said that she got her students to grow sunflower
seeds, and 8 of them had never planted a seed before!

I have so many thoughts bounding around my head as a result
of the panel discussion, it’s difficult to know where to start – I think the
best way is to do weekly posts on each of the topics. The questions covered (i)
urban nature; (ii) farming to feed the world; (iii) marine conservation; (iv)
two questions from young folks – why do farmers use pesticides when they are
bad for bees? & How can we engage children in schools with nature; (v) the
badger cull; (vi) one big thing for nature.

Firstly, urban nature. Bristol was awarded European Green Capital for 2015 –
what benefits will this give the people of Bristol? I must admit I didn't know
that Bristol had been given this status, and don’t really know what it will
mean to the city. However, here's an interesting fact: 90% of our UK population live
in urban areas. We are a democracy, so we need to engage those 90% (and the rest!)
with nature if we want people to vote for green issues and nature. We cannot hope to engage people in
nature issues if they are not inspired and educated on the importance of
nature on our well-being Making nature a natural part of our urban environment is one of the
main ways in which we can engage people in nature. We need to increase our
green spaces, and we need to make our green spaces work for us, and engage
people with our urban nature.

Bristol City Hall fronted by a large 'pond' & lots of greenery

It was beautiful weather in Bristol for the panel (shame we
couldn’t have had it outside), and as I walked through the beautiful leafy
streets of Bristol, and the wide green spaces filled with people, making the
most of the sun and the green spaces, I thought about our connection with
nature. Outside Bristol City Hall is a wide green space with trees & flowered borders, all ordered and neat, and a big stretch of clear water. I
sat on a bench looking at the nature around me, and I thought… here is a space
that we could make more of – plant the borders, not with neat rows of flowers,
but with pollinator-friendly flowers & plants, turn the huge space of water
into a thriving pond that attracts dragonflies & other water loving creatures.
Then anyone sitting in the open green space would see wildlife around them,
buzzing bees, flitting dragonflies, and the birds that are attracted to the
insects… swifts, swallows… put up panels to explain urban wildlife, run events
to engage the public with the urban wildlife & what we can do to help it.

Gardens are also a great opportunity for nature, a
resource that is little considered. I have a very small garden & when we
were choosing plants I had no idea of what to plant, we chose plants quite
randomly. But there are lots of ways that we can make our gardens wildlife
friendly [e.g. see this 'give nature a home where you live' campaign by the RSPB] – leave a bit to go wild & plant wildflower pollinator-friendly seeds, put in a small pond & let it self-colonise with plants & insects
(and amphibians if you’re lucky!), make a compost heap – it’s not just good
for putting on your garden to help it grow but is home to lots of bugs too, make a bee hotel, install a bird-box (here are guidelines for where to place them - don't put them in direct sunlight or you will end up with cooked chicks!), leave piles of stones & dead wood for other bugs, and whatever you do DON’T USE PESTICIDES. I think this is a topic I will
talk more about when I’m talking about farming practices. But our pollinator
species are really not doing well – without pollinators (which aren’t just
honeybees but other wild bees, butterflies, moths, flies & even beetles!)
we wouldn’t have fruit, vegetables and cereals. Pesticides are designed for killing pests,
i.e. our bees, butterflies, moths (& caterpillars), flies, beetles… it is a NO
BRAINER in my book – of course our pollinators are in decline when they get
clobbered with pesticides - and us
gardeners are a large part of that problem. The pesticides don’t just kill or
build up in our inverts, but get into water courses and kill our stream invertebrates (dragonflies, mayflies…), & build up in the soil and affect other species too. And let us not forget that a lot of our wildlife, birds,
mammals, survive on eating these bugs – so no bugs, no pollination, no crops,
no wildlife… & no us…

As gardeners we have a responsibility on par with farmers –
a responsibility to work with wildlife not against it. And if we can both
manage our gardens for wildlife, and stop using pesticides on our garden we can
help nature right there, and it’s immediate… by stopping pesticide use and
letting our gardens work in balance with nature we can have a more natural
garden with thriving wildlife, and see the benefits right there on our
doorstep. In the words of buglife ‘hug a slug’. See the beauty in a slug (&
all our other garden invertebrates… yes even aphids) ;) Join the RSPB campaign to give nature a home where you live.

But back to urban nature… I don’t know what the solution is for engaging our 90% of urban dwellers in nature, but it is our responsibility
as nature loving citizens to try to do our bit to engage people with nature in
our cities. Through increasing the benefits to wildlife of our green spaces,
making more green spaces, valuing and protecting our important wildlife
habitats within cities (the State of Nature report highlighted the importance of brownfield sites for rare species of plants and invertebrates), and running
wildlife events that get people up & personal with the green spaces in our
urban environments… these are ways of engaging people with nature & helping
to educate people in the importance of nature to our survival (e.g. the Wild about Plymouth events & events run by organisations such as the Wildlife Trusts).

Daisy planting flower seeds

One of member of the audience at the panel highlighted the
importance of nature to our health and wellbeing. There are studies that show
the importance of getting out in nature for our own physical and mental wellbeing. As I said in an earlier blog post, I see this with my children,
cooped up inside they are sullen, grumpy, tetchy & difficult to manage, but
outside in nature, my daughters are animated, happy, fascinated. I have spent
15 minutes with my then 2 year old watching a slug slowly slither its way
across a path, she was fascinated. Just writing this makes me realise that I
don’t get out & in the dirt in nature enough with my daughters. I spend too
much time turning on the tv to entertain them while I sit and keep up with
nature issues on twitter – not engaging with them (to be honest it is usually
first thing in the morning when I am rather lacking in energy! Am I allowed to
make excuses?). But engaging with nature is critical for us adults too – I get
crabby stuck indoors all the time too. And yes, I am a nature hugger, and
pre-inclined to love nature, but just getting outside in touch with nature,
whether just in Mutley Park while the girls are playing on the swings and
slides while I get absorbed listening to the vibrant song of the blackbird, or
in the cemetery trying to control the dog as a rabbit hops past making my dog
salivate… or go to a beach where little sandeels
wriggle out of the sand onto my toes,… nature is reviving. It lifts the
spirits. And there is scientific evidence to show this.

So urban nature is essential for (i) supporting urban
wildlife; (ii) getting that 90% of our population engaged with nature so that
as a democracy we can vote for nature-friendly policies; (iii) for our health
and wellbeing.

So get out there, hug a tree, build a wildlife garden, lie
and roll in the grass & watch the clouds go by overhead, marvel at a slug,
help a toad to cross the road, protect our remaining urban green spaces. Be
advocates for nature. DO IT!

Wednesday, 19 June 2013

To follow the discussion this evening listen on live streaming here from 7pm or follow the twitter stream #SNQT

To quote:

'This special State of Nature Question Time follows on directly from the State of Nature report publication last month. The report showed clearly that nature in the UK is in trouble. What we now need to do is look urgently for creative solutions - and what better place to debate this than in Bristol as part of Bristol's Big Green Week.

Thursday, 13 June 2013

Have you noticed changes in our natural world over your
lifetime? Without keeping records it’s difficult to know what nature is doing…
I grew up in the heart of the Derbyshire hills, with a pond full of great
crested newts & frogs and a garden full of birds & wildlife. I would lie in the grass watching the birds
perching above my head, watch little newly hatched froglets leap from the
grass as I walked through it, collect the caterpillers from the swept up
dead leaves in autumn & put them out for the birds & watch them all
feast on them (cruel?), I’d feed sugar solution to ants (and occasionally the
odd insect out of curiosity). If I’d stayed in the same place would I have
noticed declines in the species found in our garden? I now live in a city, so it’s
difficult to compare. I can say that we
clearly have a local abundance of clothes moths, and with all the wonderfully
wet summers, an abundance of snails & slugs (even in the house!). I see the
small group of swifts above the city with a mix of joy (such a wonderful sound
of summer, the sound of swifts overhead), and depression (it seems such a small
group of swifts – surely there should be more?).

An abundance of snails in Ford Park Cemetary, Plymouth :)

So how is nature doing?Well recently the nature NGOs released a report called ‘The State of Nature’ examining all available data to look at how nature is doing in the
whole of the UK. It is based on the best available data for detecting trends in
species abundance and distribution – whether by scientists, or the UK’s huge
network of nature enthusiasts who volunteer their time to help survey or simply
report their sightings*.Reading the
report is pretty depressing reading.For
all habitat types (marine, coastal, wetland, farmland, uplands, lowlands (e.g.
heaths), woodlands & urban) 60% of all species have declined over the last
50 years & 31% have declined strongly.I don’t need to examine the science behind these statements – the statements
are based on science.I guess the only
thing that should be emphasised about the report is that (as it says itself) it
is only examines trends for species with enough data – this is just a fraction
of all the species found in the UK.For
example, as a marine biologist, I know that very little is known about the trends
of most marine species: they are difficult to study being below the sea, and
many species range over large distances making it even more difficult to
monitor their status (more on this in my next blog post).

Why should it matter?! I’m sometimes asked this question –
why does it matter that we lose 70% of our invertebrates (flies, beetles, spiders,
moths, butterflies…)? – because inverts have fared the worst according to the report. Well inverts are easy – they are essential for pollination – there’d be
no crops if we didn’t have our pollinators (or at least we’d have to hand
pollinate our crops… and I don’t know what that involves but it sounds pretty
labour intensive). Every species has its place in the ecosystem, helping it to
function, and providing value to us in the form of food (fish, crops, food for
our cattle…), maintaining climate (trees lock away large amounts of carbon, so
helping control climate change), and a multitude of other functions.

You can
evaluate how much value nature provides us with in economic terms & it is
enormous (this is called ecosystem services).For example, there is a really neat paper recently published looking at
the economic value provided by streams passing through plantation forests.
Plantation forests tend to be pretty lacking in value to nature (densely packed
trees, lack of variety in species…), & there tends to be a lack of dead
wood that would be natural in any other wooded or forested ecosystem. Dead wood plays a really important role in forests and woods, providing clearings for smaller plants to thrive, providing and abundance of food and homes for a host of fungi, plants and animals to thrive. And dead wood in streams is vital for a range of
purposes including water purification (as well as increased number of stream life!).Water flowing through intensively managed forests does not have the dead
wood input which reduces food to river fish, and the water flowing into
reservoirs is unfiltered so any organic material (eg. leaves) are just swept into the reservoirs, fall to the botttom & rots, polluting the drinking water (this is a rather brief oversimplified description!).Their simple study showed that just by adding
dead wood to streams in managed forests provided huge value simply for ensuring
a pure source of water for us to drink, nevermind the other benefits on
biodiversity, fish, and recreation.They
showed a 10 to 100 times increase in the economic value of the stream with the increase
of dead wood.

This type of study (this is one of many on this growing
field) shows the value of nature in terms of monetary value (since this is the
way that our society functions). But on a personal level, for me nature is something
that I could not do without on an emotional level. I, like many, love walking
through the woods, hearing the birds sing, hear the wind rustle through the
trees, hear the buzz of bees around flowers, watch the breeze ruffle meadows of
grasses and flowers, delight in hedgehogs snuffling around, even delight in
watching a snail unfurl its tentacles and make its slow progression across the
lawn… and nature has been shown to have huge benefit to children. I
spent my childhood running around outside, escaping out the bottom of the garden
to run around in the fields. Nature is an adventure ground for children… and I
don’t know about other parents out there, but my girls are happiest when they
are outside enjoying the fresh air & most tetchy when cooped up in the
house. [good link here for article on reconnecting children with nature]

Bluebells in National Trust owned Plymbridge woods & ploughed up to make the new mountain bike trail :(

My personal view is that in the longer term there also needs
to be a total change in culture, to one where nature is valued as a necessary
commodity, where the value of the services that nature provides us with is
included in decision making… an ecological economy. However culture changes take time, so for now
let’s use the ‘State of Nature’ as a call for action, and cheer ourselves with
the thought that with nature, even one person can make a big difference :)

To follow: a focus on the state of our seas (Marine
conservation zones, fisheries management & effects of climate change)

…& I think a guide to wildlife gardening, since
alongside protection of rare and important habitats, gardens can make a huge
difference to many of our UK species, and provide an interconnected web of
patches of habitat for a range of species (& its about time I put a pond in
my garden… I miss my pond life!).

* Have a smart phone? Then there are lots of Apps available
for reporting sightings! E.g. on my phone I have ‘Tree Alert’ & ‘AshTag’
for reporting tree diseases, ‘Magpie Mapper’ for reporting any magpie
sightings, ‘BirdTrack’ for reporting any bird species sightings, and report all
my reptile & frog sightings to ARGuk via the web.

Tuesday, 4 June 2013

Before reading this blog post, please bear in mind that I am a marine ecologist not a badger ecologist! So this post reflects my personal investigation of the topic & my interpretation of the science behind the badger cull.

Most of us know what badgers look like though few of us will
have ever seen them in the wild – sadly the only sight I’ve had of a badger is
dead at the side of the road. They're difficult to see because these beautiful native mammals are nocturnal, so only emerge
from their ‘setts’ (their underground burrows) at night to hunt and socialise.

According to the recent state of nature report, badgers
are one of the few species in the UK that have been increasing.Based on a survey of badger setts carried out in the 90s, the number of badger social groups had increased over the
previous decade by around 24% (each sett has a group of badgers that
live together) – extrapolating this, the report estimated an increase in total
numbers of badgers of around 77%. And current estimates suggest that there are around
350,000 badgers in the whole of the UK (a new population survey is currently in progress). One reason behind this increase may be the introduction of new laws
to protect badgers introduced in the 1970s and subsequently (Badger Act 1973,
Wildlife & Countryside Act 1982, Protection of Badgers act 1992).

But badgers also carry bovine TB (bTB) and are one of the
causes of the transmission of bTB to cattle. Their increase is believed to be one of the factors in the recent increase of bTB in cattle. In 2012, over 28,000 cattle infected with bTB in England had to be slaughtered to the cost of
£100m to the taxpayer, and unknown cost to the farmers themselves. The
incidence of bTB in cattle has been increasing year on year to increasing
concern to farmers. But what can be done
to reverse this trend? The Chief Scientific Advisor to DEFRA, Prof Ian Boyd,
mentions 4 pillars of action in this video interview: (i) cattle testing & removal (i.e. killing) of infected
animals; (ii) reducing cattle movement to avoid contact between infected &
non-infected animals; (iii) vaccination; and (iv) wildlife control (i.e.
culling).

As of the 1st June the government issued licences for trial culls of badgers in two areas to reduce the spread of bTB in cattle. This cull will involve killing 5000 badgers
in the two pilot zones in the southwest over a 6 week period, which is
effectively 50-70 badgers killed per day. This will be repeated for 4 years. Sounds
pretty grim! The trial is to test that
the cull can be done humanely, not that it is effective for reducing the spread
of bTB. So what science is the cull
based on?

A large, near decade-long, scientific study was carried out
1998-2007 to scientifically examine the effectiveness of a cull – the Randomised
Badger Culling Trial (report here if you have the energy to read the whole tome
– it does make interesting reading, not that I've managed to read it all!). If you don’t want to read the whole tome, the BBC's Kate Humble’s video summary of the findings is a good overview. The
study carried out trial culling of badgers in ten locations in the SW where bTB
was on the increase in cattle. In 100 km2 patches (3 per area) badgers
were either: (i) left undisturbed (as a control); (ii) killed only in and
around farms with reported bTB; (iii) all animals trapped within the patch were killed (i.e. removal of 70% of the local population). The
study showed that where badgers were only killed around farms with bTB, bTB incidence rose in cattle because the remaining badgers were ranging over larger areas increasing
their contact with cattle (& with other badgers). In the area
where 70% of badgers were killed, although there was a reduction of
bTB in cattle within the area (by 28%), outside the area there was an increase in bTB (of 9%) in adjacent farms. So a cull would only work if culling was carried out at a
massive scale, the cost of which was estimated to be
higher than the current cost to farmers (& taxpayers) of dealing with infected cattle (not to mention the impact on badger populations).

I’m a scientist, and I like decisions to be based on good
solid science – in my field there is often too little research carried out to
have even a reasonable idea of effects of a particular action. So to have a large study carried out over a long period of time looking at the effects of a cull on bTB in cattle, and for the study to conclude that culling is not scientifically justified… well it just
doesn’t make sense in my mind!

What are the alternatives? The RBCT report suggests well-researched
alternatives such as better bTB tests on cattle and further restrictions
on cattle movement. Their report showed that a high level of bTB transmission
occurs between cattle, so early diagnosis and eradication is essential to
control the spread of the disease. And of course there is the vaccination route
– either by vaccinating badgers or cattle (or both). This option has its own
difficulties – catching and vaccinating every badger is challenging, and
vaccinating cattle is currently prohibited by EU legislation because the
vaccine interferes with the TB skin test (i.e. vaccinated cattle would test positive for bTB as would infected animals, the test can't distinguish between vaccinated & infected animals). I’m guessing that if the EU used the alternative TB test suggested in
the RBCT report, this would get over this problem – so should we be lobbying at
a European level? Though DEFRA say that a cattle TB vaccine is still a few years
off. One of the pro-cull arguments is that there
is no science yet to show a positive effect of any badger vaccination program. This is true, though scientifically monitored trials of badger vaccination is currently being carried out in one area in the SW. Though this is only being carried out in one area rather than the 10 in the culling trial, and less than the
original 6 planned (i.e. my interpretation is that the government are not really
committed to the vaccination route).

Vaccination aside, the RBCT report suggested that even by
carrying out the testing & cattle control measures they recommended
could bring about a reduction in bTB incidence in cattle. So I am hoping that the first two ‘pillars’
of action against bTB that Prof Ian Boyd mentions address these
recommendations.

In conclusion? I tried to be unbiased in my investigation of the science behind the cull and really sympathised reading about the farmers who have had to kill so many of their infected cattle. But I am a scientist & the science seems pretty clear to me - researchers who have spent years/decades studying these animals, experts in this field of badger ecology and disease transmission, say that the cull is unlikely to have any meaningful impact on bTB in cattle. And putting aside the cute fluffy nature of badgers, I believe the science speaks for itself.GREAT RESOURCE: the Wildlife Trust badger campaign with information on how to take action against the cull & really good background information.

Thursday, 30 May 2013

I’ve been very lax on the blogging front of late – blame it
on a manic workload combined with too many bank holidays (I work Mondays which
means that my 3 day weeks have been reduced to 2 day weeks in May – makes a big
difference when you’re working part time!), too many bugs (grrr), and my
husband being away a lot on fieldwork (or being paid to go on fieldwork for tv
documentaries – nice for some! Check out his work on dolphins co-operating with fishermen by herding fish into their nets).

I’ve been asked to be a panellist on a ‘State of Nature –the next step’ question time at Bristol’s Big Green week, and I accepted
(with a certain amount of trepidation!)… so I’m trying to make an extra effort
to keep up with all the science behind the nature news stories. And it’s been a pretty awful time for nature
in this country… I feel like going on a rant about politics, but I’ll try not
to. I’m not sure whether I’m just more
aware of all the depressing nature news now that I’m keeping up to date using
twitter, or that there is just lots of depressing nature in the news:

* All topped off by the ‘State of Nature’ report put
together by many of the nature NGOs, reporting massive declines in most species
that we have sufficient data for (and a few success stories for species on the increase).

So in the lead-up to The State of Nature – Next Steps
Question Time, I will be taking each of the main topics and looking at the
science behind the media coverage & giving my personal take on the news stories. I will start with the background to the badger
cull since this is due to start 1st June. So watch this space!

And because it’s not much fun to have a blog with so much
depressing news, I’ll end it on a couple of positives…

And… it’s spring! It’s hard not to be
joyful with fresh green leaves bursting forth, birds in full song, a multitude
of colourful flowers topped off by the beautiful glowing bluey-purple carpet of
bluebells in verges & woodlands :) Spring, a time for rejoicing in nature :)

Monday, 8 April 2013

Alas no proper blog post... I'm well overdue a new post but just been on catch-up mode since the girls were sick for so much of February/March.

At the moment it's really tough, my husband is off on fieldwork & I'm juggling the two girls AND walking the dog. This means that before I get to work not only do I have to get the girls up, fed & dresssed (& me) but we all traipse out to walk the dog, before I drop them at nursery, pick up my routine morning coffee & collapse at my desk. Then in the evening I need to leave with enough time to squeeze in walking the dog before the girls dinner... this has meant late dinners for them, grumpy toddlers (and hence grumpy me), they go to bed late, I tidy up their mess, contemplate what to eat for dinner, & then try to weigh up whether I'm allowed to collapse on the sofa or need to squeeze in more work before bed. I don't know how single parents do it... maybe they're sensible enough not to have a dog AND children ;)

...Though having a dog has its advantages... this morning we revelled in the lustrous song of the blackbird which always lifts the heart & a weary soul (and makes my toddler sing in imitation) :)

Work wise I'm firefighting at the moment, juggling too much i.e. the normal life of an academic (just feels more acute than usual)... working on multiple projects, writing reports, processing & analysing data, writing papers, making changes to co-authored papers, making changes to papers back from review, reviewing other peoples papers, keeping on top of what is going on in science through twitter and email feeds... and still not feeling like I'm achieving enough :(

But for future 'proper' blogs there is plenty on the twittersphere that has got me itching to write...* there's lots of articles on women in science at the moment, it seems to be a real hot topic... already I'm wanting to start commenting on posts but aware I haven't the time to do it justice at the moment. But this blog post has got me itching to write...

* bees & neonicotinoids - I'm all in a buzz (ha ha) about what we should do... wait for more evidence or go down the precautionary approach & ban neonicotinoids? And this got me thinking about my attitudes - I am a precautionary approach type of scientist & have had to argue my corner quite a bit recently (not to do with bees but the bees got me thinking)... but reality is perhaps not quite so straightforward... this is definitely a blog post on its own...

Plenty of food for thought & plenty of blogs waiting to be written, not to mention 'noise in the sea part II' ;)

But for now back to the grind & work on two urgent reports... ...& then collect the girls, walk the dog, feed dog & girls...

p.s. advice for 'young' (i.e. un-tenured) researchers - do not agree to write reports or get involved in projects unless they lead to papers! Learn to say 'no' ;) I'm learning this the hard way (a good blog post on this here).

About Me

I am a marine biologist who studies marine vertebrates (whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, seabirds & fish) - the sounds they make and their habitats. I also have two young children. These are my musings on a range of mostly science-based topics.